Download Practical implementation of species` recovery plans

Ornis Fennica 91:108–128. 2014
Practical implementation of species’ recovery plans
– lessons from the White-backed Woodpecker
Action Plan in Sweden
Malgorzata Blicharska*, Peter W.J. Baxter, Grzegorz Mikusiñski
M. Blicharska, Swedish Biodiversity Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7007, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden. * Corresponding author’s e-mail:
[email protected]
M. Blicharska, Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences, Box 7050, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
P.W.J. Baxter, Centre for Applications in Natural Resource Mathematics, School of
Mathematics and Physics, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
G. Mikusiñski, Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 730 91 Riddarhyttan, Sweden
G. Mikusiñski, School for Forest Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 43, 739 21 Skinnskatteberg, Sweden
Received 23 August 2013, accepted 19 February 2014
Successful biodiversity conservation requires safeguarding viable populations of species.
To work with this challenge Sweden has introduced a concept of Action Plans, which focus on the recovery of one or more species; while keeping in mind the philosophy of addressing ecosystems in a more comprehensive way, following the umbrella concept. In
this paper we investigate the implementation process of the Action Plan for one umbrella
species, the White-backed Woodpecker (WBW) Dendrocopos leucotos. We describe the
plan’s organisation and goals, and investigate its implementation and accomplishment of
particular targets, based on interviewing and surveying the key actors. The achievement
of the targets in 2005–2008 was on average much lower than planned, explained partially
by the lack of knowledge/data, experienced workers, and administrative flexibility. Surprisingly, the perceived importance of particular conservation measures, the investment
priority accorded to them, the money available and various practical obstacles all failed to
explain the target levels achieved. However qualitative data from both the interviews and
the survey highlight possible implementation obstacles: competing interests with other
conservation actions and the level of engagement of particular implementing actors.
Therefore we suggest that for successful implementation of recovery plans, there is a need
for initial and inclusive scoping prior to embarking on the plan, where not only issues like
ecological knowledge and practical resources are considered, but also possible conflicts
and synergies with other conservation actions. An adaptive approach with regular review
of the conservation process is essential, particularly in the case of such complex action
plans as the one for the WBW.
Blicharska et al.: Implementation of White-backed Woodpecker recovery plan
1. Introduction
Successful long-term conservation of threatened
species requires not only safeguarding individuals, but maintaining viable populations (Hanski
1998, Fahrig 2003, Traill et al. 2010). This often
involves large scale activities aiming at maintenance or restoration of habitats of suitable quality
and size, which are functionally connected within
a landscape (With et al. 1997, Hunter 1999). So far
the most common strategy for biodiversity conservation has been the creation of networks of protected areas, such as national parks and nature reserves, to conserve sensitive ecosystems and communities or maintain particular species (Roberts et
al. 2003, Rodrigues et al. 2004). However, dealing
with species that have large area requirements and
that live in production landscapes, e.g., regularly
managed forests or agricultural land (Miller and
Hobbs 2002, Pierce et al. 2005, Mikusiñski et al.
2007) may require going beyond protected areas
and introducing special management measures in
other areas as well. Moreover, some particular
types of ecosystems need recurring disturbances to
maintain their conservation values (Hobbs &
Huenneke 1992). This may concern either natural
disturbances like fire in boreal forest (Peterken
1996, Kozak et al. 2012) or human-induced disturbance regimes like regular mowing of meadows or
grazing on pastures by domestic stock in agricultural landscapes (Carvell 2002). In the boreal forests, one challenge is to maintain biodiversity
linked to successional phases of forest development after disturbance (Bengtsson et al. 2003). In
the absence of natural fire regimes and intensive
forestry these habitats are very uncommon in today’s landscapes and require active restoration in
order to support dependent species (Mikusiñski et
al. 2007). This presents further challenges of coordination across different management objectives
and scales.
The various approaches to biodiversity conservation are translated into a multitude of plans and
programmes to be implemented. These are sometimes successful and sometimes fail in achieving
the desired conservation goals (Priddel & Carlile
2009). Studying both success and failure of conservation actions is crucial for the understanding
of the complex nature of the conservation strategies’ outcome (Knight 2009). In many cases a plan
109
or a programme does not straightforwardly lead to
implementation in practice, since there are many
issues of concern and obstacles for effective implementation (Wärnbäck & Hilding-Rydevik
2009). Moreover, the successful implementation
of a conservation plan does not necessarily mean
the achievement of its main goal, e.g., securing the
population survival of the target species. Research
into implementation success/results has focused
either on the implementing actors and their role in
implementation (Petts & Brooks 2006), on the institutional context of implementation (Nykvist &
Nilsson 2009) or both of these (Patel 2006,
Blicharska et al. 2011a). Three recurring issues in
implementation studies are the knowledge (understanding), ability to act (resources and practical
constraints) and attitudes of the implementing actors (or their willingness to act) (Sandström et al.
2006). In this paper we focus on the implementation of a major recovery plan developed for one
species in one country (Sweden), seen from the
perspective of the implementing actors, and particularly on the practical obstacles (resources, tools,
problems) to its implementation.
The Swedish approach to species conservation
is largely based on work with red-listed species
(Gustafsson 2002, Gustafsson & Perhans 2010).
To safeguard the most threatened red-listed species in Sweden the concept of Action Plans (Swedish: Åtgärdsprogram) has been introduced (www.
naturvardsverket.se). The idea behind an Action
Plan (AP) is to focus on a particular species (or
group of species) and coordinate activities of different authorities for the species’ conservation.
The plans include an array of different conservation measures, with the main idea being to focus on
both area protection and management to create, restore and maintain high quality, functionally connected habitats for threatened species. The initial
intention was to create about 200 APs in Sweden
by 2010, however, this has not fully succeeded and
presently (2013) there are 114 APs ready (92 for
single species and 22 for groups of species). Out of
the roughly 200 planned APs, about 90 concern
species linked to forest habitats. In Sweden forests
are the dominant type of ecosystem and provide
habitat for many important species (Berg et al.
1994), but the large impact of modern intensive
forestry causes rapid decline of many species dependent on the structures and processes found in
110
ORNIS FENNICA Vol. 91, 2014
Environmental Protection Agency
White-backed Woodpecker
Action Plan (WBW-AP)
National coordinating group: national co-ordinator for WBW-AP,
National FA representative, SSNC representative
Regional coordinating groups
Nedre Dalälven
4 CAB
4 FA
Värmland
1 CAB
1 FA
Kalmar
Dalsland
1 CAB
1 FA
1 CAB
1 FA
Stora Enso, Sveaskog, SSNC, NGOs, forest owners organisations
Each CAB
*1-3 AP coordinators;
* Area Protection Unit;
* Management Unit;
* Other Units
ure 1
Fig. 1. Organisation of WBW-AP implementation. Note that region of Nedre Dalälven comprised 4 different counties. CAB – County Administrative Boards; FA –
Forest Agency; SSNC – Swedish Society for Nature Conservation; NGOs – other
non-governmental organisation
pre-industrial forests (Björse & Bradshaw 1998,
Nordlind & Östlund 2003).
Although APs in most cases focus on one or
few selected species, there is a further aspiration of
addressing ecosystems in a more comprehensive
way, following the concept of umbrella species
(Roberge & Angelstam 2004). One species considered as possessing the umbrella function in
Swedish forests (Roberge et al. 2008), the Whitebacked Woodpecker (WBW) (Dendrocopos
leucotos), has generated one of the most ambitious
and expensive APs to date. The WBW is a specialist species that requires extensive areas of forest
usually dominated by deciduous trees, of which a
sufficient amount should be old and dead or dying,
to act as a foraging substrate (Aulén 1988, Carlson
2000, Edman et al. 2011). This specialisation is the
main reason for the decline of the species in landscapes with intensive forest management that de-
creases the volume of dead wood and promotes coniferous tree species, which are more economically profitable (Virkkala et al. 1993, Weso³owski
1995, Czeszczewik & Walankiewicz 2006). The
WBW is considered Critically Endangered in
Sweden under the IUCN criteria, and it is one of
the most threatened vertebrate species in the country. In Sweden the WBW has declined steadily
with only single breeding attempts recorded at
present (Aulén 1988, Mild & Stighäll 2005). For
that reason, a recovery plan for the conservation of
the White-backed Woodpecker population in
Sweden (henceforth, “WBW-AP”) was launched
in 2005 (Mild & Stighäll 2005). The plan encompassed different measures for the conservation of
this species for four years, from 2005 until 2008,
with the intention of reviewing and updating the
plan regularly to ensure eventual species recovery.
Moreover, the WBW-AP set quantitative targets,
Blicharska et al.: Implementation of White-backed Woodpecker recovery plan
such as aiming to have a specific number of breeding pairs by a given year (200 breeding pairs in
2070 with associated interim goals). Such a quantitative approach to conservation is very uncommon, and has rarely been applied in recovery plans
around the world (Possingham et al. 2010). After
2008, the revision of the plan was prepared, however, it is still (as of 2013) not formally accepted.
The goal of this study is to analyse the implementation of the first phase (2005–2008) of the
WBW-AP in Sweden. First, we describe the
WBW-AP, its organisation and goals. Second, we
examine the implementation of the WBW-AP in
terms of the accomplishment of practical conservation measures in the field at regional and national levels. Third, we examine possible reasons
why the planned conservation measures have not
been fully realised and how their implementation
differed among particular regions. Finally, we discuss the implications of our results for practical
implementation of recovery plans in general.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Action Plan for White-backed
Woodpecker in Sweden
The AP for the WBW was created by the Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Fig. 1).
Its long-term objective was to re-establish a favourable conservation status for the species and its
habitat (Mild & Stighäll 2005). By 2030 the Swedish population of WBWs should be at least 50 reproducing individuals, with at least 100, 200 and
500 reproducing individuals by 2040, 2050 and
2070, respectively. The short-term objective was
to reverse the negative population trend. The
choice of conservation measures in the first phase
of the WBW-AP was based on the available
knowledge concerning the ecological requirements of the species, current and predicted availability of habitat (i.e., older deciduous-rich forest
with high amount of dead-wood), its former and
current distribution in Sweden, existing engagement of regional authorities and NGOs, the legal
context and available financial resources. The
work has been planned to take place in four regions that have been assessed as having the highest
potential for successful species recovery i.e., the
111
eastern part of Småland province (from now on
“Kalmar region”); Nedre Dalälven, the area
around the lower Dalälven river; and the provinces
of Värmland and Dalsland (Fig. 1). Most of the
conservation measures had clear quantitative
goals to be achieved during the implementation.
For example, a total area of 1850 ha was planned to
be covered by 2008 by conservation agreements
designed to increase the amount of deciduous trees
in the landscape.
The main units responsible for the implementation of the AP were seven County Administrative Boards (from now on “county boards”) from
the four “WBW regions”, and corresponding four
regional offices of the national Forest Agency
(Fig. 1). The WBW-AP was coordinated by the
national coordinating group that met 2–3 times a
year and, in addition, had regular telephone and email contact. They coordinated WBW-AP conservation measures in particular regions and at different levels, and motivated other actors to work with
the WBW-AP. The next level of organisation was
regional coordinating groups consisting of representatives of all county boards and regional units
of Forest Agency within a region, representatives
of forest companies (such as Sveaskog), the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, other nongovernmental organisations, and forest owners’
organisations.
Both the Forest Agency and all relevant county
boards, after negotiations with the EPA, decided to
allocate some amount of money for the WBW-AP.
Altogether, the money allocated for the WBW-AP
from 2005 to 2008 was intended to be 200 million
SEK (Swedish kronor; roughly €23m). However,
the budget for the WBW-AP was preliminary and
in reality this action plan competed for funding
with other action plans and measures.
Actual conservation measures on the ground
were carried out at the level of county boards and
regional units of the Forest Agency. There were
two main groups of measures, namely 1) creation
of protected areas and 2) practical management
measures. County boards were responsible for creation of nature reserves. Forest Agency regional
units worked mostly with establishing cooperation
with forest owners, in the form of nature conservation agreements (Swedish: Naturvårdsavtal) and
habitat protection areas (Biotopskydd). A nature
conservation agreement was a long-term (up to 50
112
ORNIS FENNICA Vol. 91, 2014
Table 1. Conservation measures planned in particular regions (the planned amount of interventions and the
associated costs in SEK 000 (thousands Swedish kronor).
Region
Dalsland
Nedre Dalälven
Värmland
Kalmar
All
Nature
reserve
(ha)
Habitat
protection
(ha)
Conserv.
agreement
(ha)
Removal of
spruce
(ha)
Prescribed
burning
(ha)
Fencing
(ha)
Creation
of dead
wood
(no. trees)
SUM
of
costs
Measure
Cost
800
28,000
300
14,400
550
8,800
790
2,465
120
2,750
90
840
9,300
220
57,475
Measure
Cost
915
20,650
280
13,440
450
7,200
1,715
3,456
177
955
138
816
7,000
140
46,657
Measure
Cost
730
21,345
310
14,880
850
13,600
1,665
4,441
105
1,520
33
396
9,400
160
56,232
Measure
Cost
545
18,775
0
0
0
0
1,220
1,920
100
1,500
20
360
4,800
120
22,675
Measure
Cost
2,980
88,770
890
42,720
1,850
29,600
5,390
12,172
502
6,725
281
2,412
30,500
640
183,039
Note: the table presents only costs by county boards and FAs, and does not include costs by other actors (e.g., the forestry companies Sveaskog or Bergvik); therefore in some cases the costs of particular measure may be different for particular regions, even
if the area of particular measure (or number of trees) is almost the same (e.g., number of trees used for dead wood creation in
Dalsland and Värmland). The table includes only costs of particular measures, but does not encompass other costs of the AP,
such as coordinator’s employment or information and dissemination activities.
years) agreement with the forest or land owner
about what could be done in a particular area. Habitat protection was a tool to protect smaller forest
habitats (usually 2–10 ha), while the owner was
compensated for profits foregone. The main onground management measures proposed within
the WBW-AP were removal of spruce and prescribed burning (both to promote deciduous succession), fencing (to exclude herbivores and promote regeneration of deciduous species) and creation of dead wood by girdling or creating high
stumps (to provide foraging substrate for the
WBW). Management was conducted within areas
that were already under some form of protection or
agreement with the owner. Usually, private contractors were hired to carry out the management.
However, occasionally a county board or Forest
Agency’s own employees worked with particular
management measures. The WBW-AP delineated, in each of the four WBW regions, a number
of tracts (13 in total) that were characterised by the
high amount of deciduous-rich forests and high
number of areas being considered particularly
valuable for the species (”värdekärnor” in Swedish) encompassing older forests with high proportions of deciduous component with a lot of dead
wood, and often being protected already. The implementation of the conservation measures was
planned to be conducted within those tracts. Apart
from area protection and management measures,
the WBW-AP measures included a captive breeding and release program, annual monitoring and
targeted information to landowners and other concerned stakeholders.
The planned levels of conservation measures
in different regions are presented in Table 1. There
were differences between regions both in terms of
quantity of measures planned and their costs. At
the national scale, the majority of costs (~80%)
were linked to creation of protected areas and conservation agreements. Among different management measures, most money was allocated to the
removal of spruce and prescribed burning, while
fencing and creation of dead wood were rather minor elements of the AP.
2.2. Data collection and analysis
To gain general insight into the WBW-AP background, its organisation, goals and main players,
we first studied the text of the plan (Mild &
Stighäll 2005). Secondly, we conducted open
qualitative interviews (Kvale 1996) with two of
the three members of the national coordinating
group, one at the end of 2009 and the second at be-
Blicharska et al.: Implementation of White-backed Woodpecker recovery plan
ginning of 2010, where we focused on the implementation of the WBW-AP and the implementing
actors. One of them was also additionally interviewed in February 2013 to gain updated information about the WBW-AP. Moreover, we had a regular telephone contact with the third member of the
national group, through whom we got many updates on the AP’s developments. We extracted
data on the quantitative goals of the WBW-AP and
their achievement from the report delivered by the
WBW-AP national coordinating group (Sjöberg
et al. 2009). Using these data we compared
planned levels of conservation measures for
2005–2008 with what had been achieved in this
period. In addition, since to date (August 2013)
work has continued despite no new version of the
WBW-AP being adopted, we also compared these
planned levels with achievements up to end of
2011 (Sjöberg, unpubl. data).
To investigate the implementation process of
particular WBW-AP conservation measures and
to understand the reasons for differences between
planned and performed measures, we conducted
an online survey (using web-based tool surveymonkey.com) of relevant actors implementing the
WBW-AP in four regions (response rate 86.3%).
These were representatives of each regional Forest
Agency and county boards executing the WBWAP, as well as other relevant actors (See Appendix, Table A).
The surveys consisted of 14 questions for the
representatives of county boards (and other actors
playing role similar to county boards in AP implementation) while representatives of Forest Agencies (and other relevant organisations) got 15
questions (see Appendix). Most of the questions to
both kinds of actors were the same. Only the specific questions concerning details of particular
conservation measures differed due to the fact that
each actor was involved in slightly different types
(and amount of) measures. The survey consisted
both of general questions that aimed at overall
evaluation of the WBW-AP’s implementation,
and detailed questions about particular conservation measures within the AP from the perspective
of the implementing actors (see Appendix). In several questions the respondents were asked to reply
on an interval scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), corresponding to the
Likert scale (Likert 1932). In other questions we
113
asked respondents to rank different alternatives
(e.g., the perceived level of costs for particular
conservation measures). Seven open questions,
where people could give comments, complemented the scoring and ranking questions, supplying us with some background information and insight into the perceptions and preconceptions of
the implementing actors.
We analysed the data by relating particular answers to the degree of the fulfilment of quantitative
conservation targets in both the entire country and
the particular regions for each of the planned conservation measures. Our analysis assumed a number of relationships between the degree of target
achievement and perceptions of the respondents
concerning different issues relevant for the WBWAP implementation. These concerned, for example, the level of priority given by the respondents
to the WBW-AP, or the effectiveness/relevance of
particular conservation measures and possible obstacles in implementing these measures as perceived by the respondents. For instance, we expected that a high priority given by the respondents to a certain conservation measure would result in a higher level of achievement of its goal,
while perceived obstacles would result in lower
achievement of the goal. When relevant, we applied Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients,
using SPSS v.17 software (SPSS 2008), to test the
strength and direction of these relationships.
3. Results
3.1. Achievement of the planned
conservation measures
The achievement of the targets in 2005–2008 was
on average much lower than planned. At the national level the best-achieved targets were creation of
dead wood and establishment of nature reserves
(on average 107.3% and 72.9% of the target, respectively) but these exhibited very large variation
among regions (Fig. 2). Achievement of all other
conservation measures failed to reach 50% of the
targets at the national level with fencing being an
extreme (6.4% of the target). Creation of nature reserves in Kalmar and creation of dead wood in
Värmland and Nedre Dalälven were the only three
cases where specific regional targets were fully
114
ORNIS FENNICA Vol. 91, 2014
180
Percent of target (2005-2008)
160
140
Dalsland
120
100
Nedre Dalälven
80
Värmland
60
40
Kalmar
20
0
Percentage of target 2005-2011
Conservation measure
Fig. 2. Percentages of
different conservation
measures that were
achieved (% of the
measures planned between 2005 and 2008),
by region. Crosses represent the mean for
all regions. Note: there
was no planned habitat
protection, nor conservation agreements in
the Kalmar region.
300
250
200
Dalsland
150
Nedre
Dalälven
Värmland
100
50
0
achieved or exceeded (Fig. 2). The degree of implementation varied broadly among regions and
depending on the conservation measure. Averaging across all WBW-AP components (targets for
particular measures), the Kalmar region achieved
its targets to the highest degree, while the lowest
level of achievement occurred in Dalsland (Fig. 2).
The relative difference among target achievements of particular conservation measures expressed by the coefficient of variation was highest
in Nedre Dalälven. As the implementation of the
plan continued until 2011, the achievement levels
in general increased for all the regions, however,
Fig. 3. Percentages of
different conservation
measures that were
achieved (% of the
measures planned between 2005 and 2011),
by region. Note: there
was no planned habitat
protection, nor conservation agreements in
the Kalmar region.
with growing differences among regions. By the
end of 2011 though, none of the regions attained
the planned levels for all the measures (Fig. 3).
3.2. Implementation of the WBW-AP
as perceived by actors
According to both interviewed members of the national coordinating group, one of the main problems in the implementation process was a lack of
full-time staff employed to work with the WBWAP. The WBW-AP work was just added to the
regular workload of existing staff. Consequently,
Blicharska et al.: Implementation of White-backed Woodpecker recovery plan
115
Table 2. Average rankings of the priority given and of the importance assigned to particular conservation
measures (number of respondents, N = 44). CV = coefficient of variation
Average priority given
(scale 1–10)*
Conservation measure
Average perceived
importance (scale 1–10)**
Average of
all regions
CV
Average of
all regions
CV
6.4
6.0
6.6
8.0
5.1
3.1
6.6
0.24
0.17
0.18
0.04
0.19
0.25
0.10
6.0
4.9
6.1
7.3
6.4
4.0
7.1
0.28
0.37
0.20
0.06
0.11
0.33
0.14
1
Nature reserve
2
Habitat protection
2
Conservation agreement
1, 2
Removal of spruce
1, 2
Prescribed burning
1, 2
Fencing
1, 2
Creation of dead wood
*Ranking from 1 to 5 for county boards (1) respondents who worked with five conservation measures, and from 1 to 6 for Forest
Agency (2) respondents who worked with six conservation measures) standardized to ranking from 1 to 10, as most of the conservation measures overlapped. Also the values of the perceived importance of particular measures for the WBW are standardized to ranking from 1 to 10. Highest score means highest priority given/importance perceived.
the national coordinating group had limited influence to motivate them to work with WBW issues.
Personal engagement of people working with the
WBW-AP was thus crucial for the implementation
of the plan. Another important obstacle was that
the budget that was finally assigned to the WBWAP work was only about 70% of the budget originally proposed. Furthermore, other conservation
objectives were, according to the interviewees, often in conflict with the WBW-AP goals. One example was the environmental quality objective
“Sustainable Forests”, running parallel with the
Forest/land owners were positive
towards this form of protection
WBW-AP, and also recommended by the EPA.
The main aim of this conservation strategy was to
protect representative old growth forest, thus
younger stands – prospective habitat for WBW –
were neglected. Moreover, the interviewees indicated that there were in general no legal tools to
protect young forest and manage it for future
stands suitable for WBW. In addition, conservation agreements or habitat protection required a lot
of work before becoming acceptable to land owners. In some cases a lot of time was spent in negotiation with the owners, but there was no outcome in
It was very time-consuming
It cost more than expected
Strongly 5
agree
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
Strongly
1
disagree
1
1
Fig. 4. Opinion of respondents about different activities, all regional together. Vertical lines indicate minimum and maximum answers represented by respondents from particular regions.
116
ORNIS FENNICA Vol. 91, 2014
Fig. 5. Opinion of respondents from different regions on particular obstacles related to
individual management
measures and creation
of individual protected
areas.
the form of an achieved agreement or protected
area if the owner did not agree at the end. According to the interviewees, there should be a “buffer”
in the planned budget for these kinds of situations.
The respondents of the survey ranked different
conservation measures according to their priority
given in their particular region (question 1 in the
survey) and according to their perceived importance for WBW conservation (question 5). At the
national level, the highest priority was given to removal of spruce and creation of dead wood while
fencing was accorded the lowest priority (Table 2).
Similarly, the respondents perceived, on average,
removal of spruce and dead wood creation as the
most important measures, while fencing was considered least important. However, these numbers
varied among regions (Table 2).
According to the respondents from all the regions, fencing costs were markedly higher than
expected, while prescribed burning, creation of
nature reserves and conservation agreements were
seen as very time-consuming. In general, most of
the management measures were seen by respondents as relatively time-consuming. However,
variation did occur (Fig. 4, see marked minimum
and maximum values represented by particular regions). Creation of habitat protection areas was,
according to the respondents, well or neutrally
perceived by forest/land owners in all regions except for Dalsland. A similar pattern was observed
in the case of prescribed burning. Creation of dead
wood seemed to not bother forest owners much in
any region (Fig. 4).
According to respondents, only in the case of
creation of nature reserves in the Dalsland region
was the administrative burden not seen as a problem. In other cases administrative routines were,
on average, seen as an obstacle in area protection
activities (Fig. 5). In relation to the management
measures, the largest perceived problem was the
Table 3. Reported conflicting interests or competing activities with other conservation-related action (in
brackets number of respondents – if more than 1).
Conflicting interests/competing activities with
Other AP
Saxifraga osloënsis (Sw. hällebräcka)
Other programmes
Wooded pastures (Sw. Trädbärande betesmarker)
Protected areas
Management plans for nature reserve (6)
Management plans for a national park
Conflicts with other
natural values
Open areas that were maintained before, now with some forest succession
in some areas
Other
Some broadleaved forest – conservation value not high enough to be protected
as nature reserve
Priorities of the Sustainable Forests objective/national forest strategy aiming at
protecting late-succession forest habitats, making it impossible to protect young
forest (5)
Some contradictions within rural landscape where WBW conservation measures
are in conflict with cultural values
Natura 2000 bureaucracy
Blicharska et al.: Implementation of White-backed Woodpecker recovery plan
117
Table 4. What would be needed to make the implementation of WBW-AP better/more effective? Other comments, grouped.
Comment group
Summary of comments (what would be needed for better WBW-AP implementation)
Understanding
Change in attitude of the AP management (positive focus)
Increased acceptance and interest among land owners
More interest and knowledge of forest managers
More comprehensive considerations (regional, integrated thinking)
Consensus on the central and regional level on habitat restoration
Better understanding of EPA and Forest Agency of the importance of restoration
More attention to wetland restoration
Resources
More data for prioritising
More money
More resources
Co-operation
Better communication with project leaders
Better coordination of WBW-AP with many other activities
Work routines More effective work methods (less strict routines)
More flexibility in the work with conservation agreements
Easier routines to deal with contractors
Possibility to concentrate on AP work, not many different tasks at once
Own staff for management
Other
Prioritising guidelines from EPA
Advice about and more respect for broadleaved production
Study trip to see WBW habitats
maintenance of fences, seen as too labour-intensive in all the regions (Fig. 5).
Out of 44 respondents, 15 believed that there
were some problems because of conflicting interests/competing activities of the WBW-AP and
other APs or strategies implemented in their organisation (Table 3). Several respondents mentioned conflicts with different management plans,
while several others underlined that work for the
WBW-AP means creating and protecting (often
young) forest habitats “for the future”, which is in
conflict with the general Swedish strategy (e.g.,
“Sustainable Forests” objective).
Over 70% of respondents claimed that, to improve implementation of the WBW-AP, they
would need more money. The second most important issue was the need for more staff working fulltime with the WBW-AP (54.4%). Relatively few
respondents felt that additional data and knowledge (20.5%) or experience (18.2%) would improve the WBW-AP’s implementation. Some of
the respondents indicated other things that would
be necessary, such as less complicated routines for
work, better coordination of the AP with other activities, or more comprehensive, holistic thinking
about conservation in Sweden (both in terms of
large-scale regional implementation of the WBWAP and in terms of its relation to other APs; Table
4).
When considering the WBW-AP in general
(Fig. 6), respondents from all the regions claimed
that its implementation took more time than expected and that they did not really have enough
time to work with it. Most of them believed that
they had enough data to work with the WBW-AP;
however, in most of the regions there was too little
money for some conservation measures and not
enough staff to work with the WBW-AP. On average, respondents from Nedre Dalälven were most
satisfied with the WBW-AP’s implementation,
while the respondents from Kalmar were least satisfied.
3.3. Relationships between achievement
of AP’s targets and perceived
implementation issues
We examined the relationship between the degree
of achieving targets for particular conservation
measures in different regions, and claims of the respondents from those regions on what would be
needed to implement the WBW-AP fully. How-
118
ORNIS FENNICA Vol. 91, 2014
Dalsland
Nedre Dalälven
We are fully satisfied with AP work
We had enough knowledge/data
We had enough staff to work with AP
We had enough money for area prot.
We had enough money for mngt
Work took more time than expected
We had enough time to work with AP
Owners were positive towards AP
Work with other APs - more important
We had more important priorities
AP had highest priority for me
AP had highest priority for my organis.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
strongly disagree - strongly agree
strongly disagree - strongly agree
Värmland
Kalmar
We are fully satisfied with AP work
We had enough knowledge/data
We had enough staff to work with AP
We had enough money for area prot.
We had enough money for mngt
Work took more time than expected
We had enough time to work with AP
Owners were positive towards AP
Work with other APs - more important
We had more important priorities
AP had highest priority for me
AP had highest priority for my organis.
1
2
3
4
5
strongly disagree - strongly agree
1
2
3
4
5
strongly disagree - strongly agree
Fig. 6. Opinion of the respondents about the WBW-AP in general.
ever, small sample sizes (n = 3 or 4 regions) preclude meaningful statistical analysis, and only
some indication of these relationships could be
identified. For example, low overall average
achievement of conservation measures may be associated with a perceived need for more knowledge/data and more experienced workers, while
high average achievement seemed to be associated
with a perceived need for more full-time staff.
We also did not find any significant correlation
between target achievement and the particular issues relevant for specific management activities.
In case of spruce removal, the correlation was
close to significant (p = 0.051) in relation to difficulties to get appropriate workers: the easier it was
to get suitable workers, the higher the plan
achievement was. In the case of spruce removal,
there was little difference between regions.
4. Discussion
4.1. Action Plan as a tool
to protect White-backed Woodpecker
While conservation is typically a long-term endeavour, like in the case of WBW in Sweden, there
Blicharska et al.: Implementation of White-backed Woodpecker recovery plan
is also a need to follow up shorter-term progress in
implementation of conservation measures. The
conservation measures in the WBW-AP in Sweden attempt to address the problems of lack of foraging substrate and habitats suitable for this species mostly by promotion of deciduous species and
creation of dead wood. Since the species requires
entire regions to be managed for its successful recovery, the WBW-AP engages many people and
organisations operating at different spatial scales
and employs many different conservation measures. However, as we described in our analysis,
the implementation of the first phase of this very
ambitious plan has not been very successful in
terms of fulfilment of the planned targets. The
breeding population of WBW in Sweden has been
extremely low since the late 1990s, and the fact
that species have not disappeared from Sweden
completely may be attributed to continuous supply
of birds through the relocation, release and artificial breeding programme (Andrén et al. 2011).
This is in strong contrast to the development of
Finnish populations of the species that started
from the similar critical level in the mid-1980s but
recovered, with many dozens of breeding pairs at
present (Lehikoinen et al. 2011). However Finland, in comparison to Sweden, has generally
higher proportions of deciduous forest at the landscape scale (Mikusiñski, unpublished) and is located closer to the source population in the East.
Predictive modelling, based on a modified version
of the WBW-AP that is currently used by the authorities as guidance for the recovery work, suggests that the achievement of the long-term quantitative targets is possible with currently employed
conservation measures (Baxter et al. unpublished), but at very high costs (see also Gren et al.
2014). However, the achievement of the short-term goal of a substantial population increase within
15 years seems unlikely due to the fact that largescale habitat restoration of intensively managed
forests currently focused on production of coniferous timber and pulp will simply take more time.
The fact that planned conservation measures in the
Swedish WBW-AP were not achieved will probably further delay the accomplishment of the overarching goal of the plan i.e., the re-establishment
of a favourable conservation status of the species
in the country.
In this paper, we largely limit our analysis to
119
the implementation aspect of the initial phase of
the plan, as perceived by the people working with
the WBW-AP. Although there was broad agreement among our respondents that active management aiming at creation of suitable habitat (i.e., removal of spruce and creation of dead wood) was
the most important and effective conservation
measure, in reality active management was highly
limited by resources, as the majority of money was
allocated to area protection measures, such as creation of reserves and habitat protection. These traditional conservation measures (i.e., area protection) appear to be less useful in dealing with species linked with succession (Bengtsson et al. 2003,
Hayward 2011), as is the case with the Whitebacked Woodpecker in the northern part of its
distribution. In the absence of fire as the main
agent supporting a dynamic network of deciduous
succession in boreal landscapes, active management must be employed to mimic the effects of fire
(Fries et al. 1997, Mikusiñski et al. 2007). The
question of financial resources distribution was,
according to the interviewees, a crucial one because, due to the non-compulsory character of the
plan, there was considerable competition with
other regional conservation activities for human
and financial resources, which resulted in lower financing for the WBW-AP than intended.
The WBW-AP as a whole is an impressive attempt to use existing knowledge to cope with a
threat of regional species extinction that according
to international treaty and national regulations
should be strictly counteracted. It is however striking that the WBW-AP lacked analyses concerning
the cost-effectiveness of particular conservation
measures in relation to the plan’s objectives, necessary for operational implementation of such a
plan (Chauvenet et al. 2010). Moreover, it did not
use any established conservation planning software (e.g., Marxan or Zonation) to derive the optimal set of conservation areas for its implementation. Instead, it was largely based on expert information and personal engagement of non-scientists
interested in the conservation of the species. Still,
having clear quantitative targets concerning the
expected population growth present in the WBWAP provides a clear set of management objectives:
an essential ingredient for optimising the conservation strategy and thus increasing cost-effectiveness in the future.
120
When setting conservation goals and planning
cost-effective conservation activities for supporting the WBW, one should also keep in mind its
role as an umbrella species. Prior to the creation of
the WBW-AP, a list of over 200 species that could
potentially benefit from this action plan was produced (Mild & Stighäll 2005). A study conducted
by Västra Götaland County Board between 2007
and 2010 (Sjöberg 2012) also showed the supportive role of WBW-oriented management activities
for numerous insect species, including many
threatened species. On the other hand, as indicated
by the results of our study, a large and complex AP
like the WBW’s can be in conflict with other conservation activities and priorities, which can undermine its implementation. One problem pointed
out by our interviewees is linked to the removal of
spruce being one of the main conservation measures of the WBW-AP. Old spruce trees, dead
wood originating from this species and old sprucedominated stands are habitats of many threatened
and specialized species belonging to different taxonomic groups (Gärdenfors 2010). In many cases
this incompatibility leads to clear conservation
conflicts without any obvious solutions. In order
to avoid these and similar controversies, careful
large-scale (both in terms of space and time) planning based on best available knowledge and possibly modelling is required to facilitate potential
synergy effects, instead of conflicts.
4.2. Planned versus implemented actions
– possible reasons for disparities
Our study shows that the Action Plan for the
White-backed Woodpecker in Sweden has thus far
not been implemented as planned. Nevertheless,
the implementation levels up to 2011 showed further progress resulting in some components far exceeding the planned targets. It may be viewed as
the result of the WBW-AP going through an implicit process of adaptive management, i.e., systematic acquisition and application of reliable information to improve management over time
(Wilhere 2002). Lundquist et al. (2002), who
found an average implementation level of 70.3%
of recovery tasks implemented from 176 recovery
plans analysed in the United States, discovered
also that plans that were revised (once or several
ORNIS FENNICA Vol. 91, 2014
times) attained higher implementation. Unfortunately, the explicit use of an adaptive management
approach in recovery plans appears so far to be
largely elusive (Fontaine 2011). Nevertheless, in
the case of the WBW-AP, the people and organizations involved in this work have been attempting
to make necessary improvements, even in the face
of changing economic support to this work and organizational changes (Ulrika Sjöberg, pers.
comm).
The results of our analysis do not give a
straightforward answer on the reasons for the low
achievement of the WBW-AP’s goals. Although
more money and full-time workers have been indicated by many respondents (as well as the interviewees) as the main factors necessary to improve
the plan’s implementation, the perception of these
needs was not correlated with the level of targets
achieved in particular regions. Some of our results
also seem to be counter-intuitive. For example, respondents from regions with highest achievement
of targets indicated the need for full-time staff for
better implementation of the plan. Without deeper
investigation of this issue, we can merely speculate that in reality full-time staffing was less important for implementing the targets than engaged and
motivated implementing actors in particular highperforming regions. This was also suggested by
the interviewed co-ordinating group.
4.3. “Implementation” and “success”
of the WBW-AP
Studying implementation of plans or programmes
is often about studying failures (DeLeon &
DeLeon 2002), as Lin (1996) has observed “the
implementation literature shows that faulty implementation is commonplace, non-random, and patterned”. However, according to DeLeon & DeLeon (2002) there are many cases of implementation that are successful or at least partly successful,
but both our negative perception of the implementation and the actual attainment of the planned targets are influenced by overly optimistic expectations placed on the plan or programme. In many
cases the central problem of the implementation of
plans or programmes is the high complexity of administrative responsibility, which is not taken into
account by the policy makers.
Blicharska et al.: Implementation of White-backed Woodpecker recovery plan
In the case of the WBW-AP, on-the-ground
practitioners who actually worked with its implementation were not consulted before its launch,
which could have caused the expectations related
to the WBW-AP to not “match the reality” of implementation, as the policy makers did not have insight into the practical work of the implementing
actors. On-the-ground practitioners are often seen
as the key to successful implementation of policies, plans or programmes (”street-level bureaucrats”; Lipsky 1980, Hjern 1982) for two reasons.
First, they possess local know-how on how things
work in practice; second, their engagement, interest and attitudes to a large extent influence the implementation process. According to De Leon and
De Leon (2002), “implementation occurred only
when those who were primarily affected were actively involved in the planning and execution of
these programs”. In other words, for successful
implementation, positive attitudes and engagement of the implementing actors are necessary,
even if not sufficient on their own (Blicharska et
al. 2011b).
In the light of our results, in which the availability of resources or perceived obstacles did not
predetermine the outcome of the WBW-AP, the
reasons for low plan fulfilment need to be sought
elsewhere. The interviewed representatives of the
national coordinating group suggested that a key
factor influencing the practical outcome of the
plan was the engagement of particular actors. Certainly, based on our results we can only speculate
on the role of increasing people’s engagement. In
addition, this engagement could also be influenced
by different external factors that we have not
tested.
Nonetheless, our results do suggest some key
issues that need to be considered when creating
and implementing recovery plans. First, recovery
plans, even if aimed at a single species, are most
often very complex and involve actors at different
governance levels. Thus, communication between
the different actors is crucial. Second, recovery
plans do not exist in a vacuum, but there are many
possible conflicts (but also synergies) with other
plans, programmes and conservation strategies.
Careful investigation of these interdependencies is
necessary prior to launching any recovery plan. Finally, the role of implementing actors is of great
importance, thus they should be from the very be-
121
ginning involved in the creation and implementation of the recovery plans.
The implementation of the AP for Whitebacked Woodpecker in Sweden is still at a very
initial phase and at present the “real” success of it
(i.e., recovery of the species’ population in Sweden) cannot be assessed. The success of conservation plans depends on both biological constraints
and operational/practical factors and as we often
cannot control the former, there is a need to focus
on the latter and optimise them when designing
conservation plans (Laycock et al. 2013). The
WBW-AP is a very ambitious and long-term
endeavour based on many uncertain premises concerning both the usefulness of conservation measures for the recovery of the species and socio-economic and practical issues difficult to predict.
Therefore an adaptive approach that regularly reviews the conservation process and allows practitioners to learn from the ongoing developments
(Brunner & Clark 1997) seems to be necessary,
particularly in case of complex action plans (Clark
& Harvey 2002).
Acknowledgements. This work was funded by grants from
The Swedish Research Council FORMAS, The Royal
Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry (KSLA),
and the School for Forest Management of the Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences. We would like to
thank all the survey respondents and the interviewees for
their help and Matt Hayward, Ricardo Lemos, Clare
McGrory, Mikko Mönkkönen and Åke Berg for their valuable comments on the previous version of this paper.
Praktisk implementering av arters
återhämtningsplaner – har vi lärt oss en läxa
från vitryggiga hackspetten i Sverige?
Framgångsrikt bevarande av den biologiska
mångfalden kräver att man skyddar arters livskraftiga populationer. Inför denna utmaning har Sverige infört ett koncept som kallas ”åtgärdsprogram”,
vars fokus är att samtidigt rädda en eller flera hotade arter och skydda de vikigaste biotoperna där
dessa arter lever. I denna studie undersöker vi
genomförandet av ett åtgärdsprogram för en paraplyart, den vitryggiga hackspetten. Vi beskriver
programmets mål, hur det är organiserat och genomfört.
Studien baserar sig på intervjuer och enkäter
122
riktade till programmets huvudaktörer. Målen för
2005–2008 uppnåddes i genomsnitt mycket sämre
än planerat, vilket åtminstone delvis förklarades
av bristande kunskap/data, brist på erfarna arbetstagare, samt administrativ inflexibilitet. Förvånansvärt nog, kunde inte uppnåendet av programmens mål förklaras med den upplevda betydelsen
av särskilda bevarandeåtgärder, upplevda prioriteringen, mängden tillgängliga pengar, eller olika
praktiska hinder.
Däremot påvisade kvalitativ analys av intervjuerna och enkäterna två viktiga hinder för
genomförandet: 1) konkurrerande intressen med
andra bevarandeåtgärder och 2) graden av bundenhet hos specifika aktörer. För ett framgångsrikt
genomförande av de komplexa åtgärdsprogrammen rekommenderas grundläggande granskning,
där inte bara frågor som ekologisk kunskap och
praktiska resurser beaktas, utan även eventuella
konflikter och synergier med andra bevarandeåtgärder.
References
Andrén, C., Blomqvist, L. & Lindén M. 2011. Nordens
Ark – a university conservation field station. — International Zoo Yearbook 45: 1–12.
Aulén, G. 1988: Ecology and distribution of white-backed
woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos) in Sweden. —
PhD Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Bengtsson, J., Angelstam, P., Elmqvist T, Emanualsson,
U., Folke, C., Ihse, M., Moberg, F. & Nyström, M.
2003: Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes.
— Ambio 32: 389–396.
Berg, A., Ehnström, B., Gustafsson, L., Hallingbäck, T.,
Jonsell, M. & Weslien, J. 1994: Threatened plant, animal, and fungus species in Swedish forests: distribution and habitat associations. — Conservation Biology 8: 718–731.
Björse, G. & Bradshaw, R. 1998: 2000 years of forest dynamics in southern Sweden: Suggestions for forest
management. — Forest Ecology and Management
104: 15–26.
Blicharska, M., Isaksson, K., Richardson, T. & Wu, C.-J.
2011a: Context dependency and stakeholder involvement in EIA: the decisive role of practitioners. —
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
54: 337–354.
Blicharska, M., Angelstam, P., Antonson, H., Elbakidze,
M. & Axelsson, R. 2011b: Road, forestry and regional
planners’ work for biodiversity conservation and public participation: a case study of Poland’s hotspots re-
ORNIS FENNICA Vol. 91, 2014
gions. — Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 54: 1373–1395.
Brunner, R.D. & Clark, T. W. 1997. A practice-based approach to ecosystem management. — Conservation
Biology 11: 48–58.
Carlson, A. 2000: The effect of habitat loss on a deciduous
forest specialist species: the White-backed Woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos). — Forest Ecology
and Management 31: 215–221.
Carvell, C. 2002: Habitat use and conservation of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) under different grassland management regimes. — Biological Conservation 103: 33–
49.
Chauvenet, A. L. M., Baxter, P. W. J., McDonald-Madden, E. & Possingham, H. P. (2010) Optimal allocation of conservation effort among subpopulations of a
threatened species: How important is patch quality?
— Ecological Applications 20: 789–797.
Clark, J.A. & Harvey, E. 2002. Assessing multi-species recovery plans under the endangered species act. —
Ecological Applications 12: 655–662.
Czeszczewik, D. & Walankiewicz, W. 2006: Logging affects the White-backed woodpecker Dendrocopos
leucotos distribution in the Bia³owie¿a Forest. — Annales Zoologici Fennici 43: 221–227.
DeLeon, P. & DeLeon, L. 2002: What ever happened to
policy implementation? An alternative approach. —
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 12: 467–492.
Edman, T.H., Angelstam, P., Mikusiñski, G., Roberge, J.M. & Sikora, A. 2011: Spatial planning for biodiversity conservation: assessment of forest landscapes’ conservation value using umbrella species requirements
in Poland. — Landscape and Urban Planning 102: 16–
23.
Fahrig, L. 2003: Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. — Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and
Systematics 34: 487–515.
Fontaine, J.J. 2011: Improving our legacy: Incorporation
of adaptive management into state wildlife action
plans. — Journal of Environmental Management 92:
1403–1408.
Fries, C., Johansson, O., Pettersson, B. & Simonsson, P.
1997: Silvicultural models to maintain and restore natural stand structures in Swedish boreal forests. — Forest Ecology and Management 94: 89–103.
Gärdenfors, U (Ed.). 2010. Rödlistade arter i Sverige 2010
— The 2010 Red List of Swedish Species. ArtDatabanken, SLU, Uppsala.
Graziano, A.M. & Raulin, L. 2010: Research Methods: a
process of inquiry. — Harpercollins, New York.
Gren, I-M., Baxter, P., Mikusiñski, G. & Possingham, H.
2014: Cost effective biodiversity restoration with uncertain growth in forest habitat quality. — Journal of
Forest Economics 20: 77–92.
Gustafsson, L. 2002: Presence and abundance of red-listed
plant species in Swedish forests. — Conservation Biology 16: 377–388.
Blicharska et al.: Implementation of White-backed Woodpecker recovery plan
Gustafsson, L. & Perhans, K. 2010: Biodiversity conservation in Swedish forests: ways forward for a 30-yearold multi-scaled approach. — Ambio 39: 546–554.
Hanski, I. 1998: Metapopulation dynamics. — Nature
396: 41–49.
Hayward, M.W. 2011: Using the IUCN Red List to determine effective conservation strategies. — Biodiversity and Conservation 20: 2563–2573.
Hjern, B. 1982: Implementation research: the link gone
missing. — Journal of Public Policy 2: 301–308.
Hobbs, R.J. & Huenneke, L.F. 1992: Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: implications for conservation. —
Conservation Biology 6: 324–337.
Hunter, M.L. (ed.) 1999: Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems. — Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Knight, A. 2009: Is conservation biology ready to fail? —
Conservation Biology 23: 517.
Kozak, I., Mikusiñski, G., Fr¹k, R., Stêpieñ, A., & Kozak,
H. 2012: Modeling forest dynamics in a nature reserve: a case study from south-central Sweden. — Journal of Forest Science 58: 436–445.
Kvale, S. 1996: InterViews – An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. — SAGE Publications,
Thousand Oaks, California.
Laycock, H.F., Moran, D., Raffaelli, D.G., White, P.C.L.
2013: Biological and operational determinants of the
effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation programs. — Wildlife Research 40: 142–152.
Lehikoinen, A., Lehikoinen, P., Lindén, A. & Laine, T.
2011: Population trend and status of the endangered
White-backed Woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos in
Finland. — Ornis Fennica 88: 195–207.
Likert, R. 1932: A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. — Archives of Psychology 140.
Lin, A.C. 1996: When failure is better than success: subverted, aborted and non-implementation. — Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.
Lipsky, M. 1980: Street-Level Bureaucracy. — Russell
Sage Foundation, New York.
Lundquist, C.J., Diehl, J.M., Harvey, E. & Botsford, L.W.
2002: Factors affecting implementation of recovery
plans. — Ecological Applications 12: 713–718.
Mikusiñski, G., Pressey, R.L., Edenius, L., Kujala, H.,
Moilanen, A., Niemelä, J. & Ranius, T. 2007: Conservation planning in forest landscapes of Fennoscandia
and an approach to the challenge of Countdown 2010.
— Conservation Biology 21: 1445–1454.
Mild, K. & Stighäll, K. 2005: Action Plan for the Conservation of the Swedish Population of White-backed
Woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos). — Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency, Report 5486.
Stockholm, Sweden. (In Swedish).
Miller, J.R. & Hobbs, R.J. 2002: Conservation where
people live and work. — Conservation Biology 16:
330–337.
Nordlind, E. & Östlund, L. 2003: Retrospective compara-
123
tive analysis as a tool for ecological restoration: a case
study in a Swedish boreal forest. — Forestry 76: 243–
251.
Nykvist, B. & Nilsson, M. 2009: Are impact assessment
procedures actually promoting sustainable development? — Environmental Impact Assessment 29: 15–
24.
Patel, Z. 2006: Of questionable value: the role of practitioners in building sustainable cities. — Geoforum 37:
682–694.
Peterken, G. 1996: Natural woodland: ecology and conservation in northern temperate regions. — Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Petts, J. & Brooks, C. 2006: Expert conceptualisations of
the role of lay knowledge in environmental decision
making: challenges for deliberative democracy. —
Environment and Planning A 38: 1045–1059.
Pierce, S.M., Cowling, R.M., Knight, A.T., Lombard,
A.T., Rouget, M. & Wolf, T: 2005: Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning: Interpretation for implementation. — Biological Conservation 125: 441–458.
Possingham, H., Baxter, P. & Mikusiñski, G. 2010: Real
conservation targets: what have the Swedes got that
we haven’t? — Decision Point 37: 2–3.
Priddel, D. & Carlile, N. 2009: Key elements in achieving
a successful recovery programme: A discussion illustrated by the Gould’s Petrel case study. — Ecological
Management & Restoration 10: S97–S102.
Roberge, J.M. & Angelstam, P. 2004: Usefulness of the
umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. —
Conservation Biology 18: 76–85.
Roberge, J.-M., Mikusiñski, G. & Svensson, S. 2008: The
White-backed woodpecker: umbrella species for forest conservation planning? — Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 2479–2494.
Roberts, C.M., Andelman, S., Branch G, Bustamante,
R.H., Castilla, J.C., Dugan, J., Helpern, B.J., Lafferty,
K.D., Leslie, H., Lubchenco, J., McArdle, D., Possingham, H.P., Ruckelshaus, M. & Warner, R.R.
2003: Ecological criteria for evaluating candidate sites
for marine reserves. — Ecological Applications 13 (1
Suppl.): S199–S214.
Rodrigues, A.S.L., Andelman, S.J., Bakarr, M.I., Boitani,
L., Brooks, T.M., Cowling, R.M., Fishpool, L.D.C.,
de Fonseca, G.A.B., Gaston, K.J., Hoffman, M.,
Long, J.S., Marquet, P.A., Pilgrim, J.D., Pressey,
R.L., Schipper, J., Sechrest, W., Stuart, S.N., Underhill, L.G., Waller, R.W., Watts, M.E.J. & Yan, X.
2004: Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. — Nature 428:
640–643.
Sandström, U.G., Angelstam, P. & Khakee, A. 2006: Urban comprehensive planning — identifying barriers
for the maintenance of functional habitat networks. —
Landscape and Urban Planning 75: 43–57.
Sjöberg, U., Stighäll, K. & Liedholm, H. 2009: Slutrapport
2008: Åtgärdsprogram för bevarande av Vitryggig
124
hackspett (Dendrocopos leucotos) & dess livsmiljöer.
— Naturvårdsverket, Stockholm.
Sjöberg, U. 2012: Vedinsekter i vitryggsområden – före
och efter skötselåtgärder. — Länstyrelsen Västra Götalands Län, Naturvårdsenheten. Rapport 2012: 22.
SPSS Inc. Released 2008. SPSS Statistics for Windows,
Version 17.0. — Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Traill, L.W., Brook, B.W., Frankham, R.R. & Bradshaw,
C.J.A. 2010: Pragmatic population viability targets in
a rapidly changing world. — Biological Conservation
143: 28–34.
Virkkala, R., Alanko, T., Laine, T. & Tiainen, J. 1993: Population contraction of the White-backed woodpecker
Dendrocopos leucotos in Finland as a consequence of
habitat alteration. — Biological Conservation 66: 47–
53.
ORNIS FENNICA Vol. 91, 2014
Weso³owski, T. 1995: Value of Bia³owie¿a Forest for the
conservation of White-backed woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos in Poland. — Biological Conservation
71: 69–75.
Wilhere, G.F. 2002: Adaptive management in habitat conservation plans. — Conservation Biology 16: 20–29.
With, K.A., Gardner, R.H. & Turner, M.G. 1997: Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. — Oikos 78: 151–169.
Wärnbäck, A. & Hilding-Rydevik, T. 2009: Cumulative
effects in Swedish EIA practice – difficulties and obstacles. — Environmental Impact Assessment 29: 107–
115.
Blicharska et al.: Implementation of White-backed Woodpecker recovery plan
125
Appendix
Table A. Number of respondents by organisation and region. Note: Nedre Dalälven is the largest region,
where the area of conservation concern overflows to three neighbouring counties. Moreover it is divided
into two sub-regions and thus the number of surveys sent and answered was largest in this region.
Surveys by region (received/sent)
Organisation
Forest Agency
County Administrative Board
Sveaskog*
Stora Enso*
Korsnäs*
Upplandsstiftelsen**
Total
Dalsland
Nedre Dalälven
Värmland
Kalmar
Total
3/3
2/4
–
2/2
–
–
7/9
4/5
11/13
3/3
1/1
0/1
1/1
20/24
5/5
3/3
–
0/1
–
–
8/9
3/3
3/3
3/3
–
–
–
9/9
15/16
19/23
6/6
3/4
0/1
1/1
44/5
* Questions as those for Forest Agency. ** Questions as those for county boards.
The survey questions
1. County boards: What activities for WBW-AP did you focus on during the AP between 2005 and 2008?
Please, rank from 5 – most important to 1 – least important
a. Nature reserve
b. Removal of spruce
c. Nature conservation burning
d. Broadleaves fencing
e. Girdling or creation of high stems (needle or broadleaves)
FA: What activities for WBW-AP did you focus on during the AP between 2005 and 2008)? Please, rank
from 6 – most important to 1 – least important.
a. Habitat protection
b. Nature conservation agreement
c. Removal of spruce
d. Nature conservation burning
e. Broadleaves fencing
f. Girdling or creation of high stems (needle or broadleaves)
2. What were the main reasons for choosing the most important activity (rank 5 or 6) in question 1? (You
may choose up to 3 answers)?
a. This is the most important activity for the species conservation
b. We have people who know how to do it well
c. This is the cheapest activity from the WBW-AP
d. This is the activity from the WBW-AP that is easiest to conduct
e. Because the forest- and land owners like best this activity or because this activity does not
influence the owners’ activities negatively
f. It was planned in the AP that we should focus on this activity
g. There is no special reason for that
h. Other reasons, please, specify ............
126
ORNIS FENNICA Vol. 91, 2014
3. What were the main reasons for choosing the least important activity (rank 1) in question 1? (You may
choose up to 3 answers)?
a. This activity does not help the WBW much
b. This activity is difficult to conduct/organise
c. This activity is too expensive
d. This activity is most expensive activity out of all activities within the WBW-AP
e. The forest- and land owners do not like this activity, or this activity is disturbing for the owners
f. This activity was not planned in AP for my region/county
g. There are no good/proper natural/geographical conditions in my region/county to conduct this
activity
h. Other, please, specify ...
4. Comments to questions 1–3:
............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................
5. What activities for WBW-AP do you consider the most important for WBW maintenance? Please, rank
from 7 – most important to 1 – least important.
a. Nature reserve
b. Habitat protection
c. Nature conservation agreement
d. Removal of spruce
e. Nature conservation burning
f. Broadleaves fencing
g. Girdling or creation of high stems (needle or broadleaves)
Comments to question 5:
............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................
6. FA: Think about the work with nature conservation agreements in the frame of WBW-AP. To what extent
do you agree with the statements below. Rank alternatives from 5 (I strongly agree) to 1 (I absolutely do
not agree).
a. We fulfilled the goal set in the plan
b. Forest/land owners were positive towards this form of protection
c. It was very time-consuming
d. The authorities’ own administrative routines were considerable obstacle
e. It cost more than expected
f. Not relevant
County boards: Think about the work with nature reserves creation in the frame of WBW-AP. To what
extent do you agree with the statements below. Rank alternatives from 5 (I strongly agree) to 1 (I
absolutely do not agree).
a. We fulfilled the goal set in the plan
b. Forest/land owners were positive towards this form of protection
c. It was very time-consuming
d. The authorities’ own administrative routines were considerable obstacle
e. It cost more than expected
f. Not relevant
7. FA: Think about the work with habitat protection in the frame of WBW-AP. To what extent do you agree
with the statements below. Rank alternatives from 5 (I strongly agree) to 1 (I absolutely do not agree).
a. We fulfilled the goal set in the plan
b. Forest/land owners were positive towards this form of protection
c. It was very time-consuming
d. The authorities’ own administrative routines were considerable obstacle
Blicharska et al.: Implementation of White-backed Woodpecker recovery plan
127
e. It cost more than expected
f. Not relevant
Comments to questions 6 and 7:
............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................
8. (County boards 7) Think about the work with removal of spruce in the frame of WBW-AP. To what
extent do you agree with the statements below. Rank alternatives from 5 (I strongly agree) to 1 (I
absolutely do not agree).
a. We fulfilled the goal set in the plan
b. Forest/land owners were positive towards this form of protection
c. It was very time-consuming
d. It cost more than expected
e. Difficult to get appropriate workers
f. Not relevant
9. (County boards 8) Think about the work with nature conservation burning in the frame of WBW-AP. To
what extent do you agree with the statements below. Rank alternatives from 5 (I strongly agree) to 1
(I absolutely do not agree).
a. We fulfilled the goal set in the plan
b. Forest/land owners were positive towards this form of protection
c. It was very time-consuming
d. It cost more than expected
e. Difficult to get permission from Rescue Services
f. Not relevant
10. (County boards 9) Think about the work with broadleaves fencing in the frame of WBW-AP. To what
extent do you agree with the statements below. Rank alternatives from 5 (I strongly agree) to 1 (I
absolutely do not agree).
a. We fulfilled the goal set in the plan
b. Forest/land owners were positive towards this form of protection
c. It was very time-consuming
d. It cost more than expected
e. Maintenance of the fence is too labour-intensive
f. Not relevant
11. (County boards 10) Think about work with creation of dead wood in the frame of WBW-AP. To what
extent do you agree with the statements below. Rank alternatives from 5 (I strongly agree) to 1 (I
absolutely do not agree).
a. We fulfilled the goal set in the plan
b. Forest/land owners were positive towards this form of protection
c. It was very time-consuming
d. It cost more than expected
e. Problem with bark beetles constitute a considerable obstacle
f. Not relevant
Comments to questions 8–11:
............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................
12. (County boards 11) Were there any problems because of conflicting interests/competing activities of
WBW-AP and other APs or strategies implemented in your organisation?
a. Yes
b. No
128
ORNIS FENNICA Vol. 91, 2014
If Yes, please, write which APs or strategies it was about
............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................
13. (County boards 12) Were there any problems because of conflicting interests/competing activities of
WBW-AP and other conservation actions?
a. Yes
b. No
If Yes, please, write which conservation actions it was about:
............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................
14. (County boards 13) Think about the work with WBW-AP. To what extent do you agree with the
statements below in a scale from 5 (I strongly agree) to 1 (I absolutely do not agree).
a. Work with WBW-AP had the highest priority in my organisation
b. Work with WBW-AP had the highest priority for me
c. We had other, more important priorities
d. Work with other APs was more important than work with WBW-AP
e. Forest- and land-owners were positive towards this AP
f. I had enough time to work with this AP
g. The work with this AP took more time than it was expected
h. We had enough money to conduct management activities for this AP
i. We had enough money to create new reserves or habitat protection, or to organise nature
conservation agreements within this AP
j. We had enough staff to work with this AP
k. We had enough knowledge/data to work with this AP
l. We are fully satisfied with our work with this AP
15. (County boards 14) What would be needed to improve the implementation of WBW-AP? More than one
option can be marked:
a. We would need more full-time staff to work with this AP
b. We would need own staff to conduct management
c. We would need more money
d. We would need more knowledge/data
e. We would need more experienced workers
f.. Other needs, please specify .........................................................
Comments to questions 14 and 15:
............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................